On September 30, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 399. Starting January 1, employers are officially banned from holding captive audience meetings—mandatory employer-sponsored meetings that discuss religious or political matters—which are a common and accepted defense against union organizing.Continue Reading Mandatory Captive Audience Meetings Are Banned in California in 2025
As we have previously reported, from the time President Biden took office, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) began systematically reversing Trump-era policy, and shifting toward pro-union and pro-employee policies. On August 22, 2024, the Board continued that push. This time taking steps to significantly impede the ability of employers to avoid unfair labor practice (“ULP”) charges without resorting to litigation. Continue Reading NLRB Will No Longer Approve Employer Proposed Consent Orders
On August 15, 2024, the Appropriations Committee of the California State Assembly passed SB 399 by a vote of 10–3. The bill had passed the Senate in 2023 and has been with the Assembly since, waiting for action and a vote. Continue Reading California Assembly Committee Revives State’s Captive Audience Meeting Ban
On July 26, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) issued its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule (“Final Rule”), which rescinds a trio of April 2020 amendments to the Board’s Rules and Regulations[1] affecting the Board’s processing of petitions that ultimately make it easier for unions to maintain recognition and stifles employee choice in whether to be represented by a union. With the final rule, the Board once again revives many pre-2020 Board policies. Continue Reading The NLRB Implements Its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule – Effective September 30, 2024
A federal judge in Texas recently cast new doubt on the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) ability to oversee labor disputes, agreeing with SpaceX that the agency’s Board Members and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are likely serving unconstitutionally.Continue Reading Texas Judge Enjoins NLRB From Proceeding Against SpaceX, Casting Further Doubt on NLRB’s Constitutionality
On July 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit told the National Labor Relations Board’s to reconsider the standard for whether abusive or inappropriate speech is protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. In so doing, the Fifth Circuit vacated the National Labor Relations Board’s decision in Lion Elastomers, LLC (Lion II), 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023), and reinstated the standard in General Motors, LLC (GM), 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020). Continue Reading The NLRB Must Apply Its Prior Standard for Protected Employee Outbursts and Abusive Speech
On May 14, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a petition for interim injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) that was filed by the Regional Director for Region One. Among other things, the court’s order required I.N.S.A, a cannabis company (the “Employer”) to: 1) immediately recognize and bargain collectively with United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1445 (the “Union”) as the collective bargaining representative of its employees even though a majority of workers voted against unionizing; and 2) rehire two pro-union employees who were terminated during the organizing campaign.Continue Reading U.S. District Court Grants 10(j) Injunctive Relief and Requires Employer to Bargain With Union That Lost Secret Ballot Election
On May 8, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) issued a decision reversing a 2021 decision the Board previously vacated after former Board Member William Emanuel, who participated in the ruling, was found to have broken ethics rules by failing to recuse himself from the case. In the decision, the Board held that George Washington University Hospital (“GW Hospital”) violated the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) by unilaterally withdrawing its recognition of a union and refusing to bargain in good faith. See The George Washington Univ. Hosp., L.P., 373 NLRB No. 55 (2024).Continue Reading NLRB Finds GW Hospital Failed to Bargain in Good Faith in Reversal of Vacated Decision
On April 26, 2024, Ctrl Alt Destroy, Inc. (“CAD”), a California Corporation and cannabis licensee filed a lawsuit against Nicole Elliott in her official capacity as Director of the State of California’s Department of Cannabis Control (“DCC”) and Rob Bonta in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that California’s Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”) is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution and is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).Continue Reading Cannabis Operator Challenges California State Statute and Regulations Requiring Labor Peace Agreements
Through Board decisions, rule making, and NLRB General Counsel’s (“GC”) memoranda, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”) continues to expand the potential penalties for employers found to have committed unfair labor practices (“ULP”). The shift toward an employee-friendly enforcement scheme has continued with GC Jennifer Abruzzo’s latest memorandum, issued on April 8, 2024, wherein the GC stated her desire to expand the availability of remedies for violations of labor law to even those employees who did not file, or are not identified in, ULP charges. Continue Reading NLRB General Counsel Issues New Memo Further Expanding Penalties for Unfair Labor Practice Violations
As we previously reported and discussed here, the Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC ruling has dramatically changed the threshold that will prompt the National Labor Relation Board (“NLRB”) to issue mandatory bargaining orders and is going to have a significant impact on the manner in which employers may respond to union organizing efforts. As the NLRB held in Cemex, if a union demands voluntary recognition based on a showing of majority support, the employer has two choices, which it must exercise within two weeks: (i) recognize and bargain with the union, or (ii) file a RM-Petition to initiate the NLRB conducting a secret ballot election. If the employer chooses the latter, and commits an unfair labor practice during the election period, the NLRB likely will require the employer to recognize and bargain with the union.Continue Reading Judge Issues First Post-Cemex Bargaining Order Despite Employer Winning Union Election